Batch job progress

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the non-destructive nature is covered. The description adds value beyond that: it clarifies cost behavior (polling is free), the specific statuses an agent can observe, and that only counts/status are returned here — not transcript content, which is an agent-facing distinction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose with enumerations, a free-cost behavioral note, and a routing to the replacement tool. Barely any waste; the phrase 'a job you already paid for' is slightly redundant with 'Free', keeping it from a perfect 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with a full schema description and an output schema, the description is nearly self-contained. It omits only a fully spelled-out poll-then-fetch workflow (poll until done, then call get_transcripts_results), which would make the agent's end-to-end behavior unambiguous.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single parameter, job_id, and the schema already documents it fully as 'id returned by submit_transcripts_job' (100% coverage). The description's 'job you already paid for' is consistent with that but adds no new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Describes a specific verb+resource ('Check the progress of a batch job') and enumerates what is returned (status queued/running/done/cancelled, counts of ready/failed/pending). It also names the sibling get_transcripts_results, so an agent can clearly tell this progress-checker apart from the transcript-reading tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States when to use this tool (checking job progress) and explicitly routes the agent away when it needs transcripts: 'Read the transcripts themselves with get_transcripts_results.' The 'Free — polling a job you already paid for costs nothing' note additionally reassures the agent that frequent polling is safe, which is a practical usage condition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.